A curated dataset for hate speech detection on social media text
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social media platforms have become the most prominent medium for spreading hate speech, primarily through hateful textual content. An extensive dataset containing emoticons, emojis, hashtags, slang, and contractions is required to detect hate speech on social media based on current trends. Therefore, our dataset is curated from various sources like Kaggle, GitHub, and other websites. This dataset contains hate speech sentences in English and is confined into two classes, one representing hateful content and the other representing non-hateful content. It has 451,709 sentences in total. 371,452 of these are hate speech, and 80,250 are non-hate speech. An augmented balanced dataset with 726,120 samples is also generated to create a custom vocabulary of 145,046 words. The total number of contractions considered in the dataset is 6403. The total number of bad words usually used in hateful content is 377. The text in each sentence of the final dataset, which is utilized for training and cross-validation, is limited to 180 words. The generated contractions dataset can be used for any projects in the area of NLP for data preprocessing. The augmented dataset can help to reduce the number of out-of-vocabulary words, and the hate speech dataset can be used as a classifier to detect hate or no hate on social media platforms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.018 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".